Hacker News
points by rayiner 2 days ago | 0 comments
But in mid-2025 there was a bill that rescinded already appropriated funds: https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4

And for 2026 the appropriations bills allocated the money directly to the state department.

[–] jeremyjh 2 days ago
Yes, after the laws were broken congress said daddy Trump can break laws. But they didn't rescind everything. $4B expired because it was unspent. That is a crime, and it has name, and that name is impoundment.

Also, are you going to even acknowledge that your previous deflections were completely incorrect, and that you just reflexively moved to a new deflection that is also incorrect?

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
> Yes, after the laws were broken congress said daddy Trump can break laws

The impoundment control act specifically provides for Congress to resend previously appropriate spending if the president doesn’t want to spend it. nothing in the empowerment control act that clearly prevents the president from freezing spending for a short period within a single given budget year before asking Congress to resend particular appropriations.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
You just can't do it, can you? Take the L man, you just got schooled and you refuse to admit it.
[–] rayiner 2 days ago
You are mistaken about how the impoundment process works.
[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
I suggest you read:

https://www.kff.org/global-health-policy/u-s-foreign-aid-fre...

[–] rayiner 2 days ago
I suggest you read the actual appropriations bills. E.g. https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4665...

The USAID budget in 2024 was almost $35 billion annually. If you search the budget bill for amounts “apportioned to” USAID, you will not find $35 billion of annual budget authority specifically to USAID. Much of USAID’s funding is appropriated to the President and apportioned to State. State has broad powers to transfer the funds: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t22/s2675/

There is a complex web of statues and regulations that applies to the state department specifically. There is a reason these lawsuits have not gone anywhere.

[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
It is pretty clear what the goal was here: to do an end run around spending money that was already appropriately earmarked. You can twist and turn all you want but that's what it was and no amount of seeking justification after the fact is going to change that.

The problem is that if you see everything through the twin lenses of paper and power that you risk losing your humanity. USAID, if anything, did plenty of good. I've seen it up close. Seeing it shut down killed people, pure and simple, and whether that may have not been the goal (it may well have been the goal, I do not know) the outcome is the same.

Creative interpretation of the rules and using judges bought and paid for and installed on dubious grounds as ways to force through things that in any other administration would have you hollering makes for an interesting test in character, morals and ultimately in actual justice.

And therein lies the reason why these lawsuits have not gone anywhere. But nobody's fooled. Well, ok, maybe you are.

[–] bosshawg 2 days ago
> > are you going to even acknowledge that your previous deflections were completely incorrect